Anarchy does not have efficient sustainability as a long term system for individuals to use or follow.

As Pro, your burden will be to try and prove the following...

Anarchy has efficient sustainability as a long term system for individuals to use or follow.

- Definitions -

Anarchy - The absence of any form of government.

Government - Any form of government that can be located on wikipedia.

Efficient - Performing or functioning in the best possible manner with the least waste of time and effort.

Sustainable - The capacity to endure.

Individual - A single human being, as distinguished from a group.

Upon accepting this debate my challenger cannot question or redefine any of the words and their definitions that are given above. In accepting this debate, you accept the definitions. If you would like to offer an alternative definition, please send me a PM (personal message).

This will be a straight up argument, no semantics, with the burden described above as the primary for all arguments by both me and my opponent.

I accept my opponent's and rules and definitions for this debate. As instigator, I will allow him to bring his case first. The first round, for this debate, will be only for clarifications and acceptance. Good luck to my opponent.

I would like to thank socialpinko for accepting this challenge. I look forward to this debate.

For the record I would like to state that I am neither for or against an anarchist society. My point here is that I don't feel it could ever truly be sustained as a society, even if I wanted it to.

I will let the readers decide if they agree.

- ROUND 1 ARGUMENT -

In my opinion, Anarchy is not sustainable as a society structure for a large group of people.

P1 - Any individual or group of individuals that has the power of resources, will always have a certain degree of control over those individuals that do not have the power of resources. This gives the people who have the power of resources power and authority.

P2 - Anarchy doesn't exist in our current world because it can't sustain itself. Even in ancient times they developed tribes out of anarchy. Now, these tribes would have logically seen two things.

1.) That natural leaders were amongst the group. Those that were stronger, smarter, etc.

2.) That other weaker people in the group would submit to the will or requests of these individuals, due to there natural status of power. (This behavior can even be seen amongst animals...Lions,wolves,etc.)

Tribes, gangs, etc. are just small governments in essence. A leader is in place that has the authority over what happens in the group or "society". This leader can have many labels, but in essence forms very similarly in his/her role as leader. Labels for these leaders have meant many different things throughout the ages, depending on the structure of order that is involved. Some of these labels are chief, king, commander, president, etc. Now, a tribe that grows to the size of a country is no different from a tribe that stays the size of a small forest. It is still a framework of order and leadership that we have come to call a government system in the modern era. (And by modern I mean the last few thousand years or so.)

This is one form of government system that would inevitably rise out of any group of people that form a society together. This form of governing system is called Tribal Council.

Tribal Council – The governing body for certain tribes within the United States or elsewhere (since ancient times).

I point this out only because this is the natural order of things when it comes to people that group together as a society.

P3 - How will the anarchist society defend itself against foreign invaders that are unified and organized in structure?

Any scenario of anarchy defending itself towards a unified order is flawed with inefficiency in my opinion.

1.) How are these little pockets of defense going to acquire the resources to fight such a war or develop the needed weaponry? In order to acquire these resources collectively and form an organized resistance effort, it would take some form of government structure.

You can't fight a unified group of order against multiple un-unified unorganized small defense forces to win. It would be like fighting the US military against all the street gangs of America. If a society does not have a structure of order and authority in the realm of defense then it will be toppled by a society that does. The entire history of mankind proves my words right. There is a reason why any society that even remotely resembled an anarchist society has been overthrown by a unified force. If my opponent refuses to acknowledge this, then I request proof from anywhere in history. Prove that an anarchist society has ever toppled and replaced a unified society at some point in history. I think this would be quite hard, because there are no anarchist societies anywhere in the world.

2.) Further, who would decide when and where to attack in an anarchist society? When and where to defend? How many soldiers go where? Etc...etc...

There must be some form of governing council that has authority over the defense and decisions of the society as a whole. Tell me how an anarchist society would defend itself without a governing council. A governing council is a form of government. Call it a democracy or a republic, whatever. It's all the same in proving that the structure of anarchy can only exist as a temporary one.

P4. Who will enforce order and rules in the anarchist society? Each person or family will hire a private defense force? How will they pay for this? Even if they do pay for a private defense force... Does that mean that if I have more money I have more power of authority? Of course it does. If I could hire a larger defense force, then I could build one myself with that kind of money or resources. Then I could enforce whatever laws I want and kill the people that oppose me. If another private defense force gets in my way... Then we shall have war. This scenario has already played out in ages past. We called these areas Kingdoms. These kingdoms were ruled by kings (private defense force leader or owner) and they enforced their law with an army (private defense force). Even in today's society, we have gangs and gang leaders which control certain areas of the world. This is very similar to what it was like in the time of kings, just with a slightly different twist. Take away the police force and national military, and it would be my bet that gangs (groups of people) would be the new powers of authority and soon enough wars would break out. After that, a large unified gang (group of people) would stand together and try to put the area into the order of one unified authority. It is the natural way of things.

And as an individual, I could just kill you if you have the resources I need... Who would stop me in an anarchist society?

I have more to say, but I am running out of time. I will let my opponent make his argument.

Let's move along to my opponent's specific points. I will be arguing from an anarcho-capitalist perspective. I will argue that an anarchist society with a free market can be sustained long term.

(P1)
I don't quite understand this point I must say. In it my opponent simply argues that in certain situations, some
individuals will have "a degree of control" over others.

Anarcho-Capitalism and the balance of power

Now if I were to take on my opponent's point from an anarcho-capitalist position then my opponent's argument falls apart. He assumes that people with resources will try to dominate those without resources. In an anarcho capitalist society though, people are moved to do things for a profit.

It is a basic part of anarcho-capitalism that a society employing that system would be made up of individuals with certain needs and wants. Some of these people will have access to resources that could be used to produce things that those without the resources need. So if I have access to these resources than I am as much at a disadvantage to my would-be customers as they are to me.

The would-be customers possess resources(some form of currency) that I want. I have resources that either my would-be customers want or that can be used to make things that my would-be customers want. If I want these customers to buy from me I will need to keep a good reputation with the community as a whole. If I make a reputation
of cheating customers and robbing those that have access to less resources then naturally I will lose quite a lot of trade. No one wants to trade with someone who could possibly cheat you. It is therefore in my best interest to keep a good reputation with individuals and groups of individuals whom I trade with and to be fair in my interactions with them.

So an individual with access to more resources is not necessarily in a position of power in relation to those with less resources as with more resources comes a profit incentive as an ends which one might use their resources as a means.

(P2)
Here my opponent argues that anarchy cannot exist as a sustainable system simply because it currently does not exist in the world. But are we to assume that because it hasn't existed yet it cannot exist? My opponent writes:

//"This is one form of government system that would inevitably rise out of any group of people that form a society together. This form of government is called Tribal Council."//

If my opponent is to prove this then simply asserting it without warrant will not do. He has not brought any evidence that this must happen. Only claiming that it is the "natural order". Far from providing historical evidence that Tribal Council must arise out of any interaction among individuals, my opponent does, to his credit, bring some reasoning behind his conclusion and I will analyze it here.

He writes that tribes of people will necessarily see two things happen. A.-There will naturally be people in the group who are stronger or smarter than others and B.-There will naturally be people who will be willing to submit to the will of these individuals. My opponent claims that this happens in lions and wolves, however should we believe that because some species interact in thi way that all must?

My opponent also makes the mistake of not taking into account the concept of property. An anarcho-capitalist society would most likely follow the first possession theory of property. This means that while intelligence and strength are still important factors in social interactions among groups, would not be as important as the factor of who possesses what resources in an anarchic society.

Even if my opponent is to theorize that only the strongest and smartest would acquire the most property, which is not too improbable, individuals with more resources would be forced to cooperate in a reasonably fair manner with those who possess less resources as I explained when I refuted my opponent's P1.

(P3)
My opponent argues that an anarchistic society would not be able to defend itself from foreign invaders. I will briefly summarize his two reasons and then proceed to refute them

1)private defense agencies would not have the resources to sufficiently fend off an attack. In order for them to defend themselves they would need "some form of government structure". I will bring a few objections to this point of my opponent. First, since we are assuming that the world is in an anarchic state, war would necessarily be much less frequent than it is now.

Before we look at how often war would be waged theoretically in an anarchist society we must ask why war is so common in the world today? We can clearly see that the largest scale wars are fought in the name of a few things. These two things can be found at the heart of most historical wars. Wars can be fought in the name of things like justice, democracy, freedom or human rights. The other reasons why one would be motivated to wage war are for things like money, land, resources or overall greed.

However since we are assuming that according to my opponent's scenario, the world is in an anarchic state we may also assume that the reason for this war or invasion will be for someting like resources or wealth. The difference though between a war waged for wealth launched by a government and a war for the same reaon lauched by a large gang or corporation is in the way that it generates it's finances. Without money or resources one could not wage a fight as my opponent admits.

Profit motive and scarcity of conflict

The individuals or group of individuals who are planning on attacking this society would need to stand to gain more wealth or resources then they might lose. This in itself would make war and aggression of that nature much more rare than it is today. The reason why government's like the United States can wage war all over the world is because it forcefully takes wealth from it's citizens. This would not be an occurence in an anarchic state as it would be made up of voluntary association of individuals in a free market. A gang of individuals or a corporation would not be able to raise taxes on it's constituents so it must use it's own money to engage in said conflict. This would necessarily keep conflict between parties at a much lower level then they are today.

(P4)
Who will enforce the rules of an anarchic society?

My opponent again forgets to apply what form of anarchism I am arguing for. I am arguing that an anarcho-capitalist society would be sustainable in the log term. This means that people form voluntary associations using a profit incentive. This problem would be taken care of relatively easy with the help of privatized courts and defense agencies. One would pay a defense agency to help in the event that someone attacks them or breaks into their home similar to the way one buys life insurance. With a profit incentive put into place, defense agencies would be motivated to treat situations where they are called by their clients in the fairest way possible. If a person thinks that their defense agency was wrong in their decision not to get the person who they percieved to be at fault, they might go to a privatized court. These courts would also be motivated by a profit incentive to judge cases in the fairest way possible so as to keep a loyal amount of customers. Courts and defense firms would be motivated by profit to keep a good reputation so as to continue associating with their clients.

I have adequately shown why an anarcho-capitalist system can be sustained long term based on profit incentive.
Vote Pro

1.) Pro describes a vision of society that although well intended, has serious flaws. Pro states...

"Some of these people will have access to resources that could be used to produce things that those without the resources need. So if I have access to these resources than I am as much at a disadvantage to my would-be customers as they are to me."

This thought statement is false. If you have resources that you would-be customers need then you are at an advantage. Because they need what you have in order to survive. You don't need what they have in order to survive, because you have the resources.

Pro states...

"So an individual with access to more resources is not necessarily in a position of power in relation to those with less resources as with more resources comes a profit incentive as an ends which one might use their resources as a means."

Pro seems to think that just because of a profit incentive their will be fair trade. This is flawed. As humanity has shown humans are run by greed, not fairness. Look at the world around you and my statement proves itself. If I have the resources that you need for survival and you have something I want which is not needed for survival, then I will force you to agree with my terms of the exchange. If the person refuses then obviously he/she will perish from a lack of survival resources. Profit can be gained in many ways, and humans are known to not play fair.

Also, if I have the resources for survival and I want power. Who is to stop me? I can offer my resources in exchange for the service other men provide. If given the choice between life or death, men without survival resources will almost always choose to accept the exchange in order to live. This creates workers, soldiers, slaves, etc. In your anarcho-capitalist society, who is to stop me if I have the resources needed for survival? Once this happens, I have the power of an army and the power of resources. With this power I would set the rules and anarcho-capitalism would cease to exist. This scenario has played out the same way many times in the past. My proof? All the kings, queens, and emperors you have ever heard of. They all prove this to be true.

2.) Pro writes...

"He writes that tribes of people will necessarily see two things happen. A.-There will naturally be people in the group who are stronger or smarter than others and B.-There will naturally be people who will be willing to submit to the will of these individuals. My opponent claims that this happens in lions and wolves, however should we believe that because some species interact in thi way that all must?"

I already explained why this is probable in my previous argument, and my opponent even agrees with me that this probable in his later paragraph, which I will now state...

"Even if my opponent is to theorize that only the strongest and smartest would acquire the most property, which is not too improbable.."

So Pro agrees with me. Moving on....

"My opponent also makes the mistake of not taking into account the concept of property. An anarcho-capitalist society would most likely follow the first possession theory of property. This means that while intelligence and strength are still important factors in social interactions among groups, would not be as important as the factor of who possesses what resources in an anarchic society."

Property or territory is owned by whoever has the power to take it and protect it from being taken. My opponent's "first possession theory" only works efficiently in a fairy tale society, where everyone honors everyone else's wishes. That is not the real world. In the real world, if I want your land... All I have to do is become powerful enough to take it. Then my opponent goes on to state that "individuals with more resources would be forced to cooperate in a reasonably fair manner with those who possess less resources".

I don't see how anyone using logic can come to this conclusion. How would individuals with LESS resources force individuals with MORE resources to cooperate? Exactly. They can't. They don't have anything to use as leverage.

3.) First, since we are assuming that the world is in an anarchic state, war would necessarily be much less frequent than it is now.

Pro assumes that the entire world is in an anarchic state. There is no reason for this assumption. I never stated any scenario where the world was in an anarchic state, so I don't know how my opponent feels justified in making the grand assumption that I stated as much. Pro's assumption is what forms most of his argument. His argument falls flat in the light of this failed assumption... But I will argue his points anyway.

"The individuals or group of individuals who are planning on attacking this society would need to stand to gain more wealth or resources then they might lose."

This statement makes no sense. If I am a large empire, and I have much more resources than the smaller society I wish to attack... My empire in totality stands to lose much more wealth and resources than the smaller society if the smaller society somehow wins the war. An large unified force would wage war just to acquire more land, resources, etc. The probability of a win due to size and power, would also be a motivating factor.

"A gang of individuals or a corporation would not be able to raise taxes on it's constituents so it must use it's own money to engage in said conflict. This would necessarily keep conflict between parties at a much lower level then they are today."

Really? Taxes can be forced, it has been happening for thousands of years. This is a fact.

4.) Pro writes...

"One would pay a defense agency .....If a person thinks that their defense agency was wrong in their decision not to get the person who they percieved to be at fault, they might go to a privatized court. These courts would also be motivated by a profit incentive to judge cases in the fairest way possible so as to keep a loyal amount of customers. Courts and defense firms would be motivated by profit to keep a good reputation so as to continue associating with their clients."

So my opponent explains a government system that is motivated by profit... Not the rights of the people involved. So power and justice could just be bought and manipulated for profit? If this were to happen, it would just be another form of government like we have today, all my opponent is doing is replacing the local police forces, FBI, US military, etc. with private police forces for profit. This is a power system that is run by wealth (resources) and without one unified force keeping the smaller units in check, the power of one unit in the society could grow until it takes authority over certain actions in the society (monopoly of force). This unit would become the new form of government.

Men seek power and influence over their desires and try to increase that power and influence over their desires. The world is not a fairytale of fairness and justice where everyone abides by the rules.

What my opponent describes as Anarcho-capitalism... does not seem to fit reality, it reads more like a fantasy.

A fantasy where fair trade and a "no aggression policy" are both honored by all men and women in the anarchist society.

The world revolves around power. Power is what decides the rules. This is why anarcho-capitalism cannot be sustained.

I really do not know where to begin. I am sorry but reading my opponent's post made me tired. I wrote 7,700 characters of argument only to have it completely misunderstood. I am not trying to call out my opponent right now though, he wrote a very intelligent and coherent response, albeit half of it completely relied on his horribly abusive definition of government. I would wait until tomorrow or Sunday to write up my response but I just had an hour long conversation on anarcho-capitalism as opposed to minarchism so I am in the mood to argue. Please, voters don't think that I am trying to call out my opponent, I am simply frustrated as he does not seem to understand to my argument.

Since my opponent did not bring any new arguments, I will simply respond to his objections to my objections to his arguments.

(P1)
I responded to this argument made by my opponent very delicately. I tried as best as I could to describe the incredibly delicate relationship between consumer and manufacturer. My opponent though simply described all consumers as necessarily dirt poor peasants at the mercy of a power hungry monster who possesses all the wealth. My opponent has given me the worst possible situation I was able to show why an individual with access to resources that others need or want, is not as powerful as my opponent describes. I will respond to my opponent's objections again.

He argues that even if there is a profit incentive, that does not mean that there will automatically be fair trade. This is a gross over-simplification though and I will explain why. In an anarcho-capitalist society as we are describing in this scenario, our manufacturer with access to resources that others want or need, stands to gain by keeping up a modest reputation with both the not very well off consumer whom we also described, but also with anyone else whom he wishes to trade with.

While forcing the consumer to give in to his demands, the manufacturer is temporarily satisfying his own self interest. However this does not help the manufacturer in the long run as if he continues to do this to his customers, his other trade partners will be less willing to trade with him. If the manufacturer is really motivated purely by greed as my opponent has described him as, he would necessarily act in a reasonable manner so as to gain in the long term.

Now if my opponent argues that if all of the manufacturers trade partners are as poor as the consumer we dealt with in more detail, let's start at a modest number of twenty people who live in the community around the manufacturer. An anarcho-capitalist society does not necessarily prevent the formation of labor unions. If the manufacturer is really putting them in the situations that my opponent describes, at what point does my opponent believe they will begin to work together to revolt against the manufacturer. Of course this is a very speculative argument, but then again so is my opponents. If they lead revolt against the manufacturer, he will have to give in to their demands of fair trade. Of course the manufacturer will do so purely out of self interest as my opponent claims. He either has the choice of killing them with his superior resources(in which case he has no labor force) or he has the choice of trading fairly with them(in which case he stands to gain in the long run from a mutually beneficial trading relationship). Of course this exhausting scenario really takes it out of me. Now to move on to my opponent's other points.

(P2)
My opponent argued that naturally, leaders and submitters would come out of any society. I see no problem in admitting this as it does not prove my opponent's case. Of course I did not really agree that this was probable. I simply said it "wasn't too improbable". But disregarding the useless semantics, my opponent goes on to argue that ownership of property means absolutely nothing, as one with more superior resources can simply come and take it if they please.
However this runs into a problem.

A person with enough resources would need to perform a cost/benefit analysis before they decide to rob some other guy. Everyone does this subconsciously before they make decisions. Should I go to the movies? Subconsciously you agree that the chance of you being murdered are low enough so that the enjoyment of the movie is worth it.

Before I go to rob you I think to myself, am I gaining enough material wealth in exchange for the possible loss of life or property on my own end? We must also remember that in an anarcho-capitalist society, individuals would have the option of buying into a private defense agency. This would be completely voluntary, which is what makes it different from a government. If you come and rob me and I have bought into this defense agency I may seek aggressive action against you.

If you have bought into your own defense agency you would most likely be in a breach of contract and thus necessarily vulnerable to aggressive retaliatory action taken against you. If you make a habit out of this action, much like an insurance agency, you might be dropped and thus open to private aggressive action being taken against you.

(P3)
In this argument my opponent again completely misinterprets my argument. He keeps creating wild scenarios where an aggressor is wildly powerful and everybody else is incredibly weak. He does not show why this is probably though. Moving past this I will refute my opponent's reasoning.

He basically makes an argument from ignorance. I argued that if one gains much less than one spends when performing any sort of activity, they will most likely not perform that activity. However he claims that this reasoning "makes no sense". However the way my opponent is describing the situation it would make perfect sense. It would be like the entire U.S. government fighting a mouse for a small piece of cheese. The government wants that cheese and so does the mouse then what does the government possibly have to gain from wasting man and firepower trying to obtain this cheese when they can simply buy a pound of it at the local supermarket for $3.25?

(P4)
My opponent believes that privatized defense agencies merely describe a government that is run based on a system of profit. I argue that privatized defense agencies are inherently opposed to the idea of government and central leadership.

Central authority vs. Multiple systems of authority

This is most likely the largest difference between a government and a corporation. A government inherently has central authority over it's occupants. While in the case of the U.S., different branches are checked by others, the state itself has authority. Final say on laws and defense is always made by the government. That is why it is a government. It is a monopoly on force and power.

Corporations however are spurred by competition with other corporations. If you don't like the service of McDonalds there is always a Burger King near. There is not one central restaurant that everyone in your area must turn to for food. If you prefer homophobic chicken sandwiches you may go to Chick-Fil-A. If you prefer Frosty's you may go to Wendy's. But the final authority on where you eat is up to you alone and is not decided by one central arbitrator.

Compulsion vs. Voluntary association

Another large difference between a corporation and a government is how they interact with individuals. A government typically has compulsory taxation to fund itself and may also have a draft. This is the way a government runs itself. Government and compulsion cannot be separated.

Corporations on the other hand are characterized by a voluntary and often times contractual relationship with customers. They do not inherently own the wealth of the people who live near them and so must provide either quality goods and services or low prices for these goods and services.

I would really like to go into more detail but unfortunately I have run out of characters.
Vote Pro.

I would like to thank my opponent for dealing with his personal frustrations maturely, I feel the same about his arguments as I feel his arguments for the An-Cap structure are based off of wishes and not based off how the real world works. I will try to make my responses short and sweet. This will help with reader interest levels.

P1 - First, Pro states that I said all people were "dirt poor peasants". This is a grand assumption and quite frankly, a low blow. I described a scenario that is very probable to take place in a scenario where the minority controls the majority of resources of the majority. Now, in this scenario... A few basic things can happen.

1.) The controller of the resources can play fair and give everyone an equal share of resources out of it's personal stock.

2.) The controller can hire people to work for the resources directly.

3.) The controller can trade fairly with the majority.

4.) The controller can horde the resources and give nothing.

As you can see, the controller of the resources directly controls the outcome of the situation because it has what the majority needs. The out come of how this plays out depends on how morally good or evil the controller might be. To think that there would never be an evil person in this society who has control over others is a hopeful dream, but falls short from reality. Besides as my opponent goes on in his scenario... You can start to see him talk of even more structure in the face of the problems (forming labor unions). Facing the inevitable problems that would naturally arise in an An-Cap society, a basic government structure would arise.

Also, my opponent belittles my understanding of government in arrogance. I understand government for what it is... A certain framework of order and authority that deals with certain criteria. Government is just the name we put on these specific structures. You can form a new kind of structure that deals with the same things and it will just be another form of government, but this would not be anarchy. Sorry.

P2 - My opponent writes...

"We must also remember that in an anarcho-capitalist society, individuals would have the option of buying into a private defense agency. This would be completely voluntary, which is what makes it different from a government. If you come and rob me and I have bought into this defense agency I may seek aggressive action against you.

If you have bought into your own defense agency you would most likely be in a breach of contract and thus necessarily vulnerable to aggressive retaliatory action taken against you. If you make a habit out of this action, much like an insurance agency, you might be dropped and thus open to private aggressive action being taken against you."

This scenario that is painted by my opponent proves my point exactly.

1.) Would be a breach of contract for creating a defense agency? Breach what contract? How do you take my freedom away to build a defense agency? And why would I sign such a contract?

2.) If a man has the wealth, he could do this regardless. Yes, their would be aggressive force involved on both sides. This aggressive force is what we call war. After the war is concluded, the power that survives will maintain control and authority over the others. This would scenario would end An-Cap society very quickly.

3.) So if someone does something you don't like... You can just hire a private defense force to go do your bidding? Sounds like a structure with cracks in it, waiting ti be filled with corruption.

P3 - In this point, my opponent accusations towards me in stating that I am making "wild scenarios".

1.) How are my scenarios "wild". They have played out almost nonstop since human civilization has been in existence.

2.) There will always be those with more power and control than others.

3.) My opponent writes... "It would be like the entire U.S. government fighting a mouse for a small piece of cheese. The government wants that cheese and so does the mouse then what does the government possibly have to gain from wasting man and firepower trying to obtain this cheese when they can simply buy a pound of it at the local supermarket for $3.25?"

My opponent falls short here. The U.S. Government would just step on the mouse if it wanted the cheese, and then add the cheese to it's collection. The U.S. Government would hardly use any energy during this transaction. We are talking about a larger force taking resources from a smaller force, not buying resources from a local supermarket.

P4 - My opponent spirals way off topic here... But I will try to direct us back on course. My opponent writes... "Central authority vs. Multiple systems of authority". This is the main point of argument here and this is where I will make my argument. My opponent is obviously for "multiple systems of authority".

1.) Different systems = Different Leaders = Different moral code = Different systems of authority

2.) When these different systems of authority decide to wage war on one another, for whatever reasons it might be... Allies will arise. Enemies will show themselves. The entire system of order which you are trying to push off as "not being a government" will crumble. It will crumble because there isn't a central force of authority to hold it together. Without out a central force of authority to hold it together it would be utter chaos. Chaos of people with different ideals on how to live and how to make those ideals come true. If these small multiple systems of authority are all that there is to keep "order"...then chaos is inevitable. Think of it like this.... We have 2 systems...

System A.) (Central Authority System) On one side you have one big dragon controlling the land, with a bunch of smaller soldier dragons under it's command. This dragon decides what is best for the land through the people's wishes and then defends and enforces the law accordingly.

System B.) (Multiple Authority Systems) On the other side you have no control over the land. Only an endless supply of small to medium sized dragons all striving for control and profit towards defending and enforcing people's personal laws and demands accordingly.

Which one do you think would win if they waged war on one another?

Which one would bring the most benefit in the most areas of a society?

Which one is more sustainable and stable?

Which one would ultimately bring more peace and less fear on a daily basis?

An-Cap Society doesn't exist because it is not an efficient structure for a society to maintain.

It would either collapse from the inside or be defeated from the outside.

In the last round I will only be making conclusions, no further arguments.

My opponent argues that my arguments are based on "wishes" however if he were to read my arguments carefully, he would see that they are all based off of self-interest. Basically we are simply arguing what works out best for the person with the most resources.

(P1)
My opponent has described four situations that might arise out of our hypothetical scenario. I will deal with them below and show that a stable long-term trading partnership is more beneficial to the manufacturer than a short term dictatorship.

1.) The controller of the resources can play fair and give everyone an equal share of resources out of it's personal stock.

I would never argue that this is a likely scenario.

2.) The controller can hire people to work for the resources directly.

This is a very probable scenario in that the manufacturer gains A.- A stable work force, B.- A valuable trading partnership. It is in the manufacturer's best interest to act in a fair and reasonable manner. I have never argued that he would simply give his wealth away.

3.) The controller can trade fairly with the majority.

This is equally as probable as the second option. The only difference is the mode of exchange. In the first, the manufacturer is paid in labor, in this one, the manufacturer is paid with some sort other form of currency. Again, it is in the manufacturer's rational self interest to do this over trying to have a forceful relationship with his customers.

4.) The controller can horde the resources and give nothing.

Now we get to the scenario that my opponent somehow believes is most probable. It may seem like the selfish thing to do and it might seem that the manufacturer gains the most out of this scenario. However under a cost/benefit analysis this scenario can be seen to be incredibly unlikely.

Costs: (A)Does not gain anything, (B)Creates a poor relationship with the locals, (C)Destroys his reputation with other would-be trading partners.

Benefits: (A)Short term stronghold in relationship with locals.

Any person with access to the amount of resources my opponent describes and the incredible greediness that he also describes would almost certainly go with the second or third options. He would not do it out of moral or humanitarian considerations. It would be purely and completely out of his own self interest.

My opponent then tries to define government. He defines it as:

//"A certain framework of order and authority that deals with certain criteria."//

Now do the readers understand my frustration?

(P2)
My opponent again shows a complete lack of knowledge of anarcho-capitalism when he writes this in response to something I wrote about private defense agencies. I will explain the context as I refute his reasoning.

1.) Would be a breach of contract for creating a defense agency?

My opponent might simply have mixed up his words here. I don't know what thought he is trying to communicate.

Breach what contract?

In order to form voluntary associations with corporations who have access to resources(weapons, manpower), a contract that dictates under what conditions this defense agency would help would need to be thought out. No defense agency would simply blindly help someone in any situation. If they come to the aid of someone who raped someone else, their reputation would necessarily be damaged. It is in their self interest to act in the fairest manner possible.

How do you take my freedom away to build a defense agency?

Your freedom is not taken away by someone building a defense agency. It is if you voluntarily associate with them that they have authority over you. And this authority is mutually equal. If they breach the contract(don't come to your aid when someone attacks you), you may consequently take them to an independent arbitrator to sue for some form of compensation.

And why would I sign such a contract?

No one makes you. It's called voluntary association and is the reason why it is not a government. However it would be in your personal self interest to sign with a private defense agency for similar reasons why it is in your self interest to have life insurance. It is so you have defense in the case that someone initiates aggression against you or your property. If you don't then you could be vulnerable to aggression.

2.)My opponent after simply asking me a lot of questions about AnCap argues that there would necessarily be violence between people with different defense agencies and that the winner would become a government. Disregarding the fact that this again does not actually constitute a government, my opponent forgets to apply the fact that these corporations cannot simply tax everyone around them to fund their war. In order to fight, a corporation must finance itself. I already showed how this simple fact would make war much less frequent than it is now.

3.)My opponent then moves on to argue that under AnCap you are able to hire private defense agencies to go after anyone who does something you don't like. Again, this point comes out only because my opponent refuses to listen to my arguments. One forms a contract with a private defense agency only to keep people from aggressing against his own property. Anarcho-capitalism is pretty much built around a strict adherence to the non-aggression principle. You do not hire goons to do your bidding, a private defense agency is there as insurance in case someone aggresses against you or your property.

(P3)

1.)Here my opponent asks how his scenarios are "wild". The reason that they are "wild" is simply because my opponent keeps changing the circumstances every time I respond to his argument. They keep getting more lopsided as each round goes by. However, even with his changing of circumstances I have shown why self interest and a cost/benefit analysis create an equilibrium among the relations between manufacturer and consumer.

2.)Here my opponent again brings the argument that some people will always have control over others. Again he refuses to listen to my actual arguments. He absolutely refuses to take the egoism and self interest into account that he keeps claiming is the sole motivator of everyone's actions.

3.)Here my opponent argues that since the benefits will always outweigh the costs in transactions between consumer and producer. However I have repeatedly shown why when one acts in self interest, one will naturally work in a mutually beneficial manner because a long-term trading relationship is more cost effective to the producer than a short term war with short term benefits.

(P3)

1.)This isn't really anything so I won't respond.

2.)Here my opponent makes a very poor assumption. He writes:

//"When these different systems of authority decide to wage war on one another, for whatever reasons it might be... Allies will arise. Enemies will show themselves."//

Here my opponent again shows his complete lack of knowledge on how an anarcho-capitalist society would work. He makes this faulty assumption only because he is first assuming that corporations are governments and then making his arguments based on that. I however showed in R3 the major differences. I believe this is the third time or so I've had t remind my opponent that corporations are not able to coercively tax anyone near them. They make decisions based on a profit incentive. I have already shown why war would be a very rare occurence.

I truly hope that my opponent carefully reads my responses so that I do not have to repeat myself again. It seems that he is choosing to incorporate self interest where it helps his case, but when it comes to my responses, people don't act according to self interest. This debate is going to be the death of me.

The resolution that anarchy(specifically anarcho-capitalism) can be sustained as a long term form of societal organization is clearly affirmed. Vote Pro.

Now we get to the scenario that my opponent somehow believes is most probable. It may seem like the selfish thing to do and it might seem that the manufacturer gains the most out of this scenario. However under a cost/benefit analysis this scenario can be seen to be incredibly unlikely."

Here is where my opponent lies directly. I never once said that option 4 was most probable. My arguments have been built around scenario 2...( The controller can hire people to work for the resources directly).

In this scenario a controller can build an army and a force of workers through hiring them to work for resources (food, shelter, clothing, coin, etc.). Which in basically turns into a Monarchy, like kingdoms of ages past.

And as I explained in my last argument, this scenario plays out depending on the moral compass of the controller. Good Monarchies will arise and so will bad ones... But they are still Monarchies. The controller decides what happens or the people lose their resources to survive and can suffer the wrath of the Monarchy leader's army.

Anything even remotely reflecting an anarchist society has always turned into a Monarchy or some other form of government. History speaks for itself. I will move on.

P2 - My opponent belittles my intelligence and then goes on to paint a picture for us... A picture that doesn't fit in with reality. MY opponent thinks that just because their are benefits to being "fair" that everyone will magically act that way. The fact of the matter is this. Power makes the rules. He who controls the most power makes the most rules. Men will always strive for power. Fairness only plays part when it satisfies an individuals needs for power. If a person has his desires met from a scenario of fairness then he will be happy and accept the scenario. However, if the individual is not happy with the scenario, he will work against it to gain the power he needs to make his desires come true. Whatever people hold the most power in the society, they make the rules. Contracts mean nothing. I can sign a contract saying that I won't kill you and then stab you as soon as you turn your back.

Power supersedes fairness because of force. You can't stop force with fairness, but you can stop fairness with force.

It doesn't matter what is most beneficial in my opponent's eyes. In the long run or the short run...power makes the rules. If I attack you... I force you to attack me or be defeated. If you choose to attack, now you are playing by my rules. Force. Power = force. In a scenario of force people will have to group together to increase power, which in turn increases their chance to win. Keep that scenario stable and it is called a unified monopoly of force. This is the natural order of things.

Lastly, my opponent continues to assume my meanings and belittles me further. I never spoke of corporations or governments being the forces I spoke of. I spoke of the defense forces in general, put whatever label you want on them, it would not change the outcome. And my opponent speaks in specifics of corporations and governments, these are just labels my friend. We are talking about human behavior in a society here. Labels mean nothing in essence.

My opponent belittles my knowledge on what a government is, but he himself does not understand what a government truly is in essence.

What is a Monarchy in essence? A controlling framework of order and authority over a society of people.

What is a Republic in essence? A controlling framework of order and authority over a society of people.

What is a democracy in essence? A controlling framework of order and authority over a society of people.

What is a government in essence? A controlling framework of order and authority over a society of people.

I understand what my opponent obviously does not. Government is just a label. In essence it provides the same function, the difference in what you label the framework. Numbers, structure, etc, these variables in different combinations all form the many different labels for different governments that we have in the world today. But please, don't forget what a government truly is in essence.

My opponent hides behind grand assumptions and accusations, this is because he has no foundation to stand on in this debate. A sustainable Anarcho-Capitalist society doesn't exist now, has never existed before, and will never exist in the future. This is the real truth. This is what Anarcho-Capitalist can't accept.

Look at the behavior around you. Look at the world we live in. Look through the history books.

(P1)
Here my opponent and I seem to have had a communications error. In the last round he provided four scenarios that could possibly play out in a certain hypothetical situation we had been discussing. Out of the four, the last one seemed like the only bad one and so I assumed that was the one that he was arguing would most likely happen. Something weird happened though. He was actually arguing that a situation would occur that is a basic tenet of free trade. He argues that:

//"The controller can hire people to work for the resources directly."//

In this case, how does this situation create a government? My opponent argues that this is a monarchy. However what exactly is the definition of a monarchy? Wikipedia defines it as:

""a form of government in which the head of state reigns by some kind of perceived divine sanction. It is usually hereditary and there is usually only one monarch""

The scenario that my opponent described though is not in line with any form of "divine sanction". This is also different from a monarchy in that the relationship is completely voluntary. A characteristic of a monarchy is that there is an autocratic ruler who has compulsory power over his or her subjects. One is not forced to work for the manufacturer. It is simply in their interest as a means to an ends. That was quite a miscommunication in that my opponent seems to believe that voluntary associations among individuals who form a mutually beneficial trading partnership is what a government is.

Is this a government? Wikipedia defines government as a "compulsory political institution". The very fact that individuals have a choice in the matter is proof that it is the very opposite of a government.

(P2)
Here it is clear that my opponent has lost. He concedes that is in people's best interest to trade with each other and because of this my opponent argues:

//"MY opponent thinks that just because their are benefits to being "fair" that everyone will magically act that way."//

Of course it doesn't magically mean they will, it just logically means that they will. An anarcho-capitalist society is built around self interest and egoism. The reason it works is because people who trade fairly benefit through mutual partnerships. That is the way capitalism is set up. People's wants and needs can be taken care of because the people with access to wealth and resources have enough self interest to trade with others to quantify that wealth.

Labels and human behavior

Next my opponent brings up a meaningless point. He misunderstands what I mean when I refer to individuals or groups of individuals as corporations. The only thing that I mean by this is that it is a person who is motivated by self interest(Or a group of individuals who worth in unity to accomplish the goal of quantifying their material wealth). My opponent argues that because we are speaking of human behavior, labels mean nothing. But the labels that I give to certain groups denote a specific relationship that they have with other individuals or groups of individuals. This is necessary in a debate such as this one.

I only wish that over the course of this debate, my opponent and I could have communicated better. My opponent also seems to have taken this debate without much knowledge on how an anarcho-capitalist society works. However even as my opponent and I did not communicate very well, I am confident that voters will see that. Good luck to my opponent in the voting period. But still vote Pro.

"This does not make sense. Profit as the main driving force behind any society will only lead to corruption and power struggles."

The argument is not that anarcho-capitalism is an ideal fairy tale existence, it is simply that it is less prone to corruption as it is easier for governments to be corrupted than private enterprises which are held to the constraints of free enterprise.[1]

In what way do you feel that a society that is driven by profit... Is less prone to corruption?

This does not make sense. Profit as the main driving force behind any society will only lead to corruption and power struggles.

This kind of society that you speak of has existed before in merchant towns of the past. They are always conquered by a larger more powerful force that forces it to abide by it's rules. Usually in the form of taxes or other random laws.

It's not that I have something personal against An-Cap society as a theory. My point is that it is a weak inefficient theory for a society structure.

"An-Cap does not logically make sense as a sustainable society structure."

That's the question isn't it, and there is a wealth of political and social science which explores it and in any case the answer is not obvious for if it was then no one would waste time researching it.

My point is that it is not a valid argument to say that anarcho-capitalism is not valid as it does not exist currently as if you accept that as a valid argument then every single form of government would have been rejected in the period before it was successfully actualized.

Similar, keeping the same logic, there was a period when we had no theory of electricity at all, no theory of gravity - thus would someone be justified in refuting a hypothesis in development as logically unsound because no current theory exists? Of course not, everything starts off as a theory.

Now here is an interesting question :

Given the premise than anarcho-capitalism is inherently a greater expression of personal liberty and less prone to corruption and has an inherent higher tendency for wealth formation -then- why have the anarcho-capitalist societies which have existed all nucleated states?

So basically nothing means anything, because it can all just "really" mean something else or it's all just "hypothetical".

The same can be said about your Anarcho-Capitalism if that's the game you want to play. But we live in a real world where real things happen. Behavior can be seen in patterns. Logic can be applied to the estimations of behavior patterns in society. An-Cap does not logically make sense as a sustainable society structure.

You question logic and behavior patterns and then you speak in riddles.

There is a real world out there. Look around you.

You can question everything... But there ARE logical answers. If you just question those answers in return. Then you live a life of questions with no acceptable answers. Have fun with that.

To expand on the RFD, making a debate and then putting the resolution in the OP is a bit of an odd practice as readers have to actually seek to find out exactly what is being debated.

Second, the following :

"Anarchy has efficient sustainability as a long term system for individuals to use or follow.

- Definitions -

Anarchy - The absence of any form of government.

Government - Any form of government that can be located on wikipedia."

Has the potential for trivial refutation as an insensible proposition because anarchy as chaos and complete lack of government (in the lay sense not in the sense of lack of state ruler/admins) is obviously not sustainable by definition.

I would have liked to see socialpinko first take a clear definition of anarcho-capitalism, show how it is a form of anarchism (maximization of individual liberty) and how the opening post by Lionheart is a pure strawman and then show how in the actual social and political theories of anarcho-capitalism the premises are often not even logical concerns such as :

"P1 - Any individual or group of individuals that has the power of resources, will always have a certain degree of control over those individuals that do not have the power of resources. This gives the people who have the power of resources power and authority."

Ok, how is that argument against the stability of anarcho-capatilism, of course certain people will have more power and control over others. This would only no be true in an anarcho-commune (fully shared property, no individual claim to wealth).

Finally, note how this is simply an assertion, this will happen, why will it happen? Why does a society have to form power imbalances? I would have liked to see socialpinko challenge all of the assertions and demand warrant before refuting them.

Just me, in any case, respect for both parties for doing what was essentially a speed debate. This entire thing was finished while I was having one round with Unitedandy i

Reasons for voting decision: "Now do the readers understand my frustration?" - a few points, clearly define terms. In the middle of the debate Con seems to argue that anarchy will turn into a government, anarcho-capitalism is a form of government what it is not is a form of a state, these are two very different things. Second, both parties made a lot of scattered arguments and it would have been helpful to concentrate on 1-3 core points. 1 PT to Pro as Con did not carry the BoP.

You are not eligible to vote on this debate

This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.